Somehow Fine
Feeling It
Struggling
Fucked
Absolutely Fuckedhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e57dexly1o
> In her November Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves scaled back business rate discounts that have been in force since the pandemic from 75% to 40% - and announced that there would be no discount at all from April. That, combined with big upward adjustments to rateable values of pub premises, left landlords with the prospect of much higher rates bills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_rates_in_England
> Properties are assessed in a rating list with a rateable value, a valuation of their annual rental value on a fixed valuation date using assumptions fixed by statute. Rating lists are created and maintained by the Valuation Office Agency, a UK government executive agency.
You pay a percentage of the hypothetical rent as tax. There is a lower rate if you're a small business, and there are also tax reliefs for various reasons (charity, partial building occupation, etc.)
But pubs have been in trouble for quite some time: https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2025/05/27/numbe...
Pubs have high costs, small margins and customers are extremely price-sensitive. What pubs are generally asking for is more types of relief, because what we tend to see is pubs close, people in the area become more isolated, and the building remains empty for years thereafter. [] Pubs appreciated the post-COVID relief, but tax rates are about to shoot up.
[
] fun fact: if the building is vacant, its landlord must pay rates as if it's 100% occupied. Hence this brazen scheme where a man puts a snail farm in every room so you can pay the rates of an agricultural enterprise: https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/dec/04/...https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/23/ye-of-littl...
That, combined with big upward adjustments to rateable values of pub premises, left landlords with the prospect of much higher rates bills.
Many deaths were postponed because their taxes were reduced due to Covid. Those taxes are now returning to normal levels. This will result in a glut of deaths, as pubs that were just hanging on go under.
The policy question is, basically, do we want to subsidize pubs because they're part of our national culture, even though we don't use them nearly as much as we used to?
But pubs are a weird place to draw the line.
Just get rid of all the third spaces in an area and turn it into a lifeless residential suburb or something. Once pubs are gone it'll be something else.
Without this more pubs could exist. So I don’t think it’s a case of subsidising as much as removing the disincentive.
Beer was far more expensive 25 years ago - £1.60 in 2000 in the student pub when I first started buying my own beer, that was about half an hour at minimum wage.
On the cost side: Wages are higher, energy costs more, rent is higher (because if the pub can't operate the owner can get planning permission to convert it to a private dwelling and sell it for £600k rather than making £12k a year in rent)
On the demand side: People are healthier and drink less. It's nowhere near as acceptable to go out for a few pints at lunch time. People can't drive to a rural pub.
Yeah but then you've to drink at spoons.
Wetherspoons are definitely pubs. They just have a reputation for cheap drinks and cheap meals. But there’s still a significant proportion of people who go there for drinks only.
It’s more like a drinking warehouse with carpet on the floor and a menu of mostly beige food than a larger version of a cosy country pub with a roaring fire and a varied food menu sometimes involving vegetables that have not been deep fried.
TBF their curry club and other food specials are basically subsidising old bachelors to the point of being an ersatz social service @ £8.45 to £11.45, including a drink, for 12 hours of service every Thursday.
https://thewetherspoonsmenu.uk/wetherspoons-curry-club-menu/
Generally speaking, its best described as the RyanAir of pubs. It gets you there, cheaply, but the juice may not be worth the squeeze in terms of ambience and clientele.
So how do spoons make a profit?
The main difference that I see is that they buy cheap properties and thus don't have crushing rents.
What this page doesn't show is the increase in rent for these buildings.
Dunno how much of an effect that is, it can only account for so much.
Think about the price of a keg of beer - much cheaper/pint than buying beer at a pub or from anywhere else in a smaller size. Very high-volume customers have contracts with distributors that can get them even better deals, sometimes significantly better.
Alcohol is pretty much always sold at a huge markup though - 4-5x is standard in the US. UK regulation might be different, but it's likely that the majority of costs in the pub business are in insurance and licensing rather than alcohol and rent.
But not many pubs are crappy in these respects.
The main reasons why fewer people are visiting average or good pubs are: * cost of living is going up so many people have less disposable income * the younger generations are much less interested in alcohol than previous generations
The latter point is an interesting one. There are two wildly different drivers for this that I’ve witnessed.
Many of the under 25s now either don’t drink alcohol at all, or only drink a fraction of what their elders did. Many prefer to just go to the gym instead (which is the millenials third space).
On the flip side, some of the children of my friends and family say that alcohol in pubs is just too expensive, so they get their kicks from recreational drugs like weed or ket.
The number of people who have the disposable income to go to the pub regularly is falling in the UK, and the mainstay of the pub was often the working class and they are being priced out by everything getting more expensive.
There aren’t enough people with enough disposable income to weather the storms and keep going to the pub regardless, and therefore pubs (in general) are in deep trouble.
No, but the tax on food - which is where a lot of money lies, for most pubs in this day and age - is. Also, business rates end up being significantly higher per unit of alcohol sold. This means stores can keep alcohol prices very low (even under cost, as a promotional item).
Add to that that alcohol consumption rates are decreasing overall, sugar tax affecting non-alcoholic drinks, energy prices skyrocketing, etc.
Reducing taxes are not subsidizes. Subsidizes are when the government gives tax money to a business, not when they take a little less from a business.
People might think it's the same equation, but the difference in reality is enormous for the economy.
Lots of Pubs in the UK are closing down in recent years. Pubs have traditionally been a big part of socialising in the UK. I don't drink anymore so I don't bother unless I am having a pub lunch on a Friday.
I know a lot of bars in my area also are places to play board games nowadays.
It kinda is though depending on who you go to the bar with.
I went to the bar to get fucked up, a lot of my career I've worked in toxic workplaces, so have stressful day and work and then hit the bar.
Most of my mates at the time were heavy drinkers. We are talking about people that would have 6 beers and the bar and have a bottle of Rioja when they get home. Some of these dudes have turned out to be scumbags.
Once I stopped drinking, I never spoke to them again. Not once. So these people weren't my real friends.
> I know a lot of bars in my area also are places to play board games nowadays.
TBH, when I see people playing board games other than like Chess or Draughts as adults (and there are not children present), I just find it embarrassing like it is like some child day care. I appreciate it is a "me" problem, but I can't stand it.
It seems like the taxes only go up while the services get worse in the UK, although I’ve been away for 5 years now so maybe things improved.
There’s time for some party to sort themselves out before the next election is due (Aug 2029).
Any party that does all of these will be guaranteed electoral wins for decades - I've seen the data back when I was a Tory. Problem is, these points are kryptonite to the very identity of either major party.
The EU customs union prevented the UK striking bilateral global free trade deals, and the legacy of EU over-regulation continues to curtail our innovation. The UK has a solid history of global trade and innovation, and it can acheive more if unshackled from the EU.
Austerity is absolutely necessary. If we keep giving the NHS above-inflation pay rises inline with what their staff demand, it would consume the entire annual excess wealth from the productive half of the economy in a matter of decades.
What we need are sensible and pragmatic policies like Reform's scaling back of net zero, for example. The cost of Ed Miliband's net zero measures are an estimated £4.5 trillion over the next 25 years, and a gross cost in excess of £7.6 trillion.
https://iea.org.uk/media/net-zero-could-cost-britain-billion...
That's more than our entire GDP. Just one example is the 20 year wind farm contracts that Miliband has set up, with a guaranteed energy cost that's nearly double the market rate for gas power (and then on top of that we need to pay for wind curtailment, grid upgrades and expensive backup power plants to cover low wind days).
https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/2011335138987168173
We were promised that renewables would reduce energy bills. That was a total fiction, and the politicians are to blame.
Green energy could be a massive success story, and it could make our bills cheaper, but inept politicians from the Tories and Labour have focussed instead on vanity metrics.
On the NHS, of course, gut the only thing that's keeping the country sane. I can literally not keep count anymore of the number of skilled doctors and talent who have left the UK after years of practice because the pay was becoming untenable with current living needs. Remove the NHS and you might as well call yourself a client state of the US.
On renewables and net-zero, yes, what we need is more reliance on conventional fuels so that we can be ever more reliant on Russia and the Middle East and the US right? Meanwhile economies like China, India and even your brethren in Australia are racing to put in more renewables capacity because it is just so much more cheaper and efficient now. Those guys are forging real paths to energy independence, unlike you lot.
Renewables haven't been reducing your energy bills because you guys haven't been putting up anything of note. Wake me up when Hinckley Point C comes online.
You think the NHS is “keeping us sane”. Two of my family members have been close to death waiting for an ambulance that never arrived / waiting in a crowded emergency waiting room with internal bleeding for hours. I pay about £10K per year in tax to the NHS for a service that is inferior to the private care I receive for approx £1K a year. The whole system is a shambles and gets worse every year. It underpays and mistreats its staff. It is inefficient.
On your point about renewables, I never claimed we needed more reliance on fossil fuels. I think we should be building more nuclear plants. France is a shining example of how to generate electricity. And then, once we have affordable battery storage (in a few years) we will be able to expand wind/solar in a sensible fashion without our stupid politicians making our energy bills the highest in the developed world.
> Renewables haven't been reducing your energy bills because you guys haven't been putting up anything of note.
The UK is #1 in Europe for wind capacity and #2 globally for offshore wind (behind China). And we have the highest energy bills in the developed world
You jest.
Overall the tax burden in the UK is middling for western democracies. It's actually on the low side for low earners - which is probably a problem because the distribution is such that the majority pay very little.
The other problem being cliff edges and complexities which distinctive chasing pay rises and working more for a lot of people.
Could you put the actual numbers in for that please, because to me that implies German tax rates of 120%? Is that across all forms of taxation, including local (the relevant one here!)
Median salary of a full time employee in the UK in 2023 (to match the German source): £34,963 [1]
Take home on that salary (after income tax and NI): £28,692 [2]
Effective tax rate on a median salary in the UK: ~18%
Median salary of a full time employee in Germany: €4,479 pm [3] or €53,748 per year
Take home: €34,281 [4]
Effective tax rate on a median salary in Germany: ~36%
Tax _rates_ are not that different, but the previous British governments really ramped up the tax-free allowance, which significantly reduces the effective tax rate.
[1]: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...
[2]: https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php
[3]: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Labour/Earnings/Earnings-E...
https://www.ismypubfucked.com/pub/11447801200
> the Inklings, a literary group including J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, started meeting at The Lamb and Flag.
It in fact closed temporarily in the pandemic due to UK law preventing their then owner / operator, St John’s College, a charity, subsidising a loss making business, despite having the wherewithal to do so.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-55763746.amp
Rateable value is based on what the market prices would be to rent that space. So, somebody is doing nicely apparently.
It doesn't benefit a town if rent is so expensive that their businesses shut down.
Say 64 weeks and the process produces one whole home for someone else. I get that there should be some people between the construction worker and the citizen eventho they never did anything useful to the result but the margins are so preposterous that the original salary is a mere rounding error.
Then I look at Amish barn raising videos and the laughter becomes uncontrollable. I would definitely go there and help out - for free of course. If I had to keep doing that I would look for some vegetables and uhh my own house? Even if they would never build it for me it would still be more enjoyable than the western extortion scheme.
In 2026, at 18y minimum wage is €7.36 per hour and at 21y it rockets up to €14.71
Not that youth wage past 18y isn't a stupid concept, but your wage being guaranteed to at least double in ~36 months time is rather relevant.
They also are relating a story from their past and since they have had an account since 2015, I am assuming their youthful past was at least 1 decade ago if not nearly 20 years ago.
Edit: But you are of course right about inflation! According to this website[1] it would bump them to 3.2 EUR/h.
[1]: https://www.inflationtool.com/euro-netherlands/2005-to-prese...
It should’ve been at least 450 euro equivalent even in 1990, using 2024 value euros.
The point was that market value has very little to do with cost but is driven by intentionally limiting construction permits.
Out of the million euro that people have to pay to buy the 350 000 home very little goes towards building it.
The surplus of people looking to live someplace isn't an accident.
Now let us imagine what it is like running a pub. After subtracting the cost and the 5000 rent bill they probably have a sizable negative salary.
Look at it like this: if 18y minimum wage was €3 back then and would double to €6 at 21y, and you're a construction worker working for €8.50 at 18y, you're sure as shit going to demand a raise at 19, 20 and 21 because all the people making minimum wage are getting those raises too. Maybe not a doubling, but you wouldn't (shouldn't) gnash your teeth and still make €8.50 three years later.
And the average house price just went past half a million. Even cheap housing is north of 350K. You can't save up against yearly price increases.
80 hours total on-site labor to build, or 80 hour of your (presumably lower-skill) labor?
The increase in supply then lowers prices.
The problem comes when local laws and the planning permission system make it hard or impossible to increase the supply of homes. Then there's no balancing force to bring prices down when they go up.
For example, if you look at some of the densest cities in the world they are still predominantly single standing homes, just much more tightly packed, and in homes we can't huild. So I believe zoning and planning are the key issues, and I think property developers would actually play a smaller role in solving the supply problem if you allowed individuals to solve this problem themselves with less strict zoning and planning.
Obviously big developments still play a role, but at the stage American cities are often at, NYC excluded, I think zoning being more favourable to medium density would go a long way.
This could all simply be due to a devaluation of the currency, rather than due to increased desirability or productivity.
Same in the Netherlands
I wonder if there's an equivalent use case in the US.
(Yes I tried disabling all the dark settings, no difference)
Fighty customers, crap beer, odd opening hours, and half their food menu is off ("sorry mate, we've got no cheese"). Oh, and now their credit card terminal prompts customers for a tip!
I love a good pub, but most are crap.
It's just basic communications skills, and honestly decency, to describe what a thing is and who it's for.
Maybe someone who isn't the target audience still wants to learn about the thing? Which this site provides no way of doing. That's the problem. Why choose to be inaccessible like that, when it's so easy to add a couple of works and links?
> or poke around out of curiosity
You mean like by following links that are supplied? Because that's my complaint: there are no links.
What is the main country where dying pubs is such a big subject?
For f**ks sake I am not from UK yet it is easy to understand what it is all about from context and language. And I wasn't even aware of that tax change.
Pure US arrogance.
How should I know? That's the point. It might as easily be Ireland for all I know. Or maybe pubs are dying in Boston or something?
> For f*ks sake I am not from UK yet it is easy to understand what it is all about from context and language.
I'm happy you're so smart. Not all of us are so lucky, I guess.
> Pure US arrogance.
Who said anything about the US? You know there are people from a lot of other countries who speak English too? If your concern is arrogance, it seems like it's your own that perhaps needs to be dialed back a little.
Suggesting that communication can be clearer isn't a form of arrogance. To the contrary, it's something that comes out of empathy, identifying how communication could help more readers/listeners.
I just read your account name.
Is it too much to ask for clear communication?
If you're going to critique, you should probably try to get your facts right first.
It's self-centered to want others to communicate well to you when they aren't attempting to communicate with you in the first place.
You want to learn about the thing? You have the entire internet at your fingertips. Click search bar, type "pub rates," boom, thousands of news stories.
If you want to know what's going on, put in the bare minimum effort to find out. If you don't care then ignore it and move on.
For private communication, of course.
For public communication? On a .com? It's simple politeness, courtesy, and respect. It's about not wasting other people's time unnecessarily. It's just decency. I'm amazed that you can be arguing against basic decency and respect here.
Are you the sort of person who goes up to people in public and asks what they're talking about? Because that's what you're doing. Except you aren't even asking, you're just saying "if you're going to talk in public then you need to explain your topic so everyone can understand it."
Your time isn't being wasted. It doesn't take any more time to think "I don't know what this is talking about, oh well" than it does to think "this mentions England and Wales, I guess it's about some local issue there." Unless you're so self-centered that the very idea of a web site's purpose not being immediately comprehensible to you personally is such an affront that you have to put in time to complain about it.
You're arguing that obfuscation is somehow a good thing. How does that make any sense?
When people communicate clearly, it makes the world a better place. People understand each other more easily. They don't have to waste as much time figuring things out. It's the golden rule, treating others the way you'd like to be treated.
If you don't understand that, I genuinely don't know what to tell you.
You're on a web site with a vague title and a bunch of random links, and zero explanation on the front page for what it's all about. Do you also complain about that?
This is not obfuscation, this is aiming at a particular audience that you aren't a part of. This web site doesn't need an introduction so that people browsing from Kazakhstan can understand what it's about, any more than a calculus lecture needs to start with basic arithmetic to cover attendees with no math background.
You're doing the internet equivalent of yelling at people to speak English when they're having a conversation in another language. It's as uncouth here as it is there.
Right! Which is why you should give that context when you create something for public consumption. Get it now?
> You're on a web site with a vague title and a bunch of random links, and zero explanation on the front page for what it's all about. Do you also complain about that?
Yes actually. HN has a terrible design for new visitors. Why would I defend that? HN is known for a lot of things, but its design is not one of them.
> You're doing the internet equivalent of yelling at people to speak English when they're having a conversation in another language. It's as uncouth here as it is there.
No, I'm doing the internet equivalent of criticizing where someone is giving a public lecture but refuses to give it a sufficiently meaningful title so people know whether or not they want to attend it.
This is a public website meant for public consumption. Not some private communication I'm trying to butt into.
You seem to be trying to defend some kind of gatekeeping-through-obscurity, where new potentially interested visitors ought to be made confused and have to "work" to figure things out. Why would anyone do that intentionally, or defend that? It's just rude and thoughtless.
"...meant for public consumption." Which public? Not one which includes you! But you insist that you must be part of the group it's meant for.
This is fair enough, but they don't make it too hard -- there's an About page, where the first line mentions England and Wales and the rest of the page makes it clear that the issue is about rate increases. Googling something like "england pub rate increases" will get you the rest of the way if you're interested.
(I think us non-Americans sometimes go a bit far with the whole "finally you're tasting some of your own medicine, Yanks!" thing, and I'm sorry some people are being aggressive. But I don't think this site is as opaque as you're suggesting, nor that it makes any more assumptions about its audience than lots of US-based sites do. They're targeting locals, and I think it's fine for a home page to start talking to its intended audience immediately rather than wasting space on an introduction for outsiders.)
It's not until I get to checkout I realise they do not ship to my country or want to deal with me.
Why?
I'm not saying this is good or bad or justified or not, just saying what the conventions are.
co.uk, com.au, com.mx, com.my and co.jp exist for example, but I have never heard of a co.fr, com.it or co.de or org.dk
Bottom line: there is no real convention
I expect some countries like the UK and Australia to use something like `co.uk`. I expect many countries to use their own top-level domain. I do not assume that some `.com` website is American.
Is “the only” based on experience? How many websites from how many countries have you come across?
> I'm not saying this is good or bad or justified or not, just saying what the conventions are.
Do people associate `.com` with “company”? Or just “regular website”? Are people even stopped from making a `.com` if they don’t have a “company”?
Is this Swiss business allowed to use `.com` because they have offices in the US of A?
If it's clearly local to somewhere (news, shopping, etc.) as opposed to global or a webapp or something, and doesn't say it's specific to any other country, then yes people generally assume it's American.
Because when sites are intended for audiences in other countries, they usually use a country-specific TLD. Which, for historical reasons, never became a convention in the US since it's where the Internet was invented.
If you haven't noticed that this is a clear pattern, I don't know what to tell you.
Random examples of foreign brands/companys in completely different industries: https://www.nestle.com is the "global" address of Nestle, a Swiss company. Mitsubushi, a japanes company uses https://www.mitsubishi.com with a /ja subpath to handle japanese language. The FIFA, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association which was founded in Paris, France and is know headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, uses fifa.com as its main domain despite having several regional office accross the globe but none in the US.
Assuming .com is by default for the US market is just dog piss on a tree therefore it's mine typical ignorance and arrogance from US folks.
And the web by a Brit working in Switzerland. It all runs on Chinese hardware with software written by people (and their dogs) from every nation on earth.
The point, if there is one, is buried in the details.
Here, read the history:
USAmerican have .us, i don't need a reason why you would need to claim that .com is USAmerican, unless you live in a very small bubble
That's not true though, is it?
When I read stories I feel I can pick out US and UK instantly:
> Everyone is freaking out about ... - American
> ... has been Sacked from - British
> They negotiated a total sum of ... - British
> The ... is totally insane - American
Maybe it screams "not American", but the rest of the Commonwealth does exist, you know. Some of us are standing right here.
Neither American nor from the UK, but I knew what this was about because it's possible to go online and seek out information. Neat.
What I didn't do was become some entitled see you next tuesday and complain that a .com should be reserved for the american audience and the site should use a .co.uk – As if american businesses don't utilise foreign TLDs to create cutesy URLs. Maybe now is a good time to note that the fashionable .AI TLD belongs to Anguilla, a British territory.
We need better social spaces which do not have the token cost of drinks to use.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/personal-finance/finance-expe... shows how little pubs make per pint, very sad.
If anyone's curious about cask beer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ud_eTwY4nc&list=PLyDTS7ZG3z... is a very interesting youtube video series by The Craft Beer Channel.
You could buy a bottle of Teachers and serve yourself 25ml for 70p. You could buy a bottle of 30-year aged Macallan matured in sherry oak, and serve yourself 25ml for £160.
In a pub, you should be able to get a shot of blended whisky for about £4-6, and mass-market single malts (the kind you also find in supermarkets) for about £5-£10.
If you don't ask for a specific whisky, they should ask you which one you want, and/or say "is name alright?" and give you one of the cheap ones.
What are the margins on a Codeacola?
I knew java was good for something
WTF.
> Based on VOA data (Nov 2025) which is often inaccurate. Many pubs have also closed since then.
Being a .com as opposed to a .co.uk, you can't even tell from the domain.
The only big red letters are "THAT NEEDS YOU".
There is a reason the prime meridian goes through Greenwich and it isn’t because we asked nicely.
Give it a few months.
Sometimes you need moments like this to remind you that your assumption is wrong
If you use a .com for something that is specific to a country/region that is not the US, the onus is on you to clarify. That's the problem here. If you're not going to make it ".uk", then you should be making that obvious on the homepage.
If you are from the US, the only nation who doesn't frequently use a national TLD, the onus is on you to judge if a site is commercial, US-specific, global, or something else entirely.
People outside the USA, i.e. the majority of the world, often experience the opposite to what you've described: the tiresome implicit assumption that everything on the internet is US-related by default. It's not.
Maybe even a Union Jack in the corner as a background image, or something.
2023 Rateable Value £13,800
2026 Rateable Value £12,250
Change -£3,300(-23.9%)
I guess "no" would be the answer then.
Nearest town has 3 pubs where rates are going down significantly and 4 where they're going up. I wonder why, is it that the previous setup was unfair to those who are seeing their rates going down?
The pub I do go to each week is seeing rates going up +£3,300. That's not as big an impact from yet another inflation busting minimum wage increase.
However the much bigger concern is that people will be scared to drive there. Currently you can drive there, have a pint, and then go home, and be confident you're not triggering the limit. They're reducing this limit, which means no more trip to the pub.
I'm sure it's fine in big cities where people live in walking distance.
Scotland, Northern Ireland & the rest of the world play by different rules.
But again, now I know it's talking about that kind of pub, what is the actual issue? Some sort of rate being added to something? What rate? Is this related to a rating system? Taxes? Is it affecting the consumer? The owner?
So confused.
It's been in the news quite a bit over the years since the pandemic.
Not every site has to provide an ELI5.
For a generic ".com" domain that isn't American, it's generally a good idea to yes, have a kind of minimal hint that tells you at least which country it's about, and at least a single link you can follow to get the broader context.
I'm following a link to it on HN. When I get there, I have zero context. Visitors to your site can come from anywhere, so it's generally considered a good idea to provide basic context.
Umm, I take it you didn't click the "About" link at the top right of the page. That gives you some of that context and names the countries involved in the first full sentence.
Alternatively clicking on the "Map" link should give a sizable proportion of people a big hint about which countries it involves. Three seconds of scrolling out on the map makes it obvious.
It's generally a good idea to make the subject of your site clear on the homepage, without requiring people to start clicking around to hunt for it.
I do not drink. I am half Irish and half German.
Drinking is a _very_ weird cultural artifact from our past. It doesn't improve your life, it has been scientifically proven to not 'help you relax', and there may in fact be no safe amount of alcohol to drink; all the pop-sci headlines that say 'one glass of wine a week may improve your health' are really about studies that put the safe max at one glass per week.
From what I can tell, the UK is no longer subsidizing what is effectively a criminal enterprise that is centuries old.
None of them have ever explained why alcohol, or any drug use, needs to be part of third spaces.
Society is losing third spaces, largely due to unchecked capitalism eroding the society it serves... but 'pubs' are just another form of rent-seeking by landlords. It has been proven without a doubt that third spaces as a commercial venture is ultimately non-functional, yet that is what pubs and bars have always been, and now they are dying out.
Commercial pubs have existed for hundreds of year. But drinking doesn’t have to be commercial. In Berlin where I live there’s a non-profit hacker space that has a bar with at-cost drinks. It’s also perfectly legal to buy a beer and sit in the park. And of course, nothing is better than having friends over for a wine tasting.
Third places need to have some kind of draw, else nobody will show up. "If you build it, they will come" is for the movies. In the real world you need to have a compelling reason to have others come in your door. Space alone is not sufficient to establish a third space.
That draw doesn't necessarily have to be alcohol (or another drug), but it was the thing that many people used to want. Threatening use of a third space by fear of the wrath of a mighty deity only buys you one day out of the week, I'm afraid.
You're quite right that people no longer want alcohol like they used to. Why nurse a hangover when you can get the same dopamine rush scrolling through TikTok at home from the comfort of your couch? This means that many third spaces of yesteryear no longer serve a purpose, and as you call out, have closed as a result.
Which is all well and good, I guess, but some segment of the population still wish that there were third spaces for them to exist in. Trouble is that they've never been able to find anything as compelling as alcohol used to be across large swaths of the population, making a different kind of third space of the same scale a complete no-go. Trying to salvage the remaining alcohol-centric third places is the only path they can see to try and relive that glory.
Of course there are plenty of alcohol-free (or at least not alcohol focused) third spaces that revolve around niche interests, but these are generally not seen as a good fit for those who don't have that particular niche interest. Alcohol was historically so successful as the foundation for a third space because, once upon a time, nearly everyone was interested in it, bringing everyone in the door.
--------
Distilling what I remember about an entire book I read a couple years ago into a HN comment is difficult, but one of the more salient notes from it is this: Adult humans are naturally suspicious of others and slow to trust, particularly those they have no existing points of connection to. In contrast - children have much lower inhibitions in this sense and are much better at this.
Alcohol, in moderation, is one of the most effective tools in humanity's arsenal to more easily socialize with and create trust with total strangers.
The "reduction of inhibitions" we are all aware of in terms of being a risk of making negative choices, also serves to greatly reduce inhibition of the average adult to new interactions and experiences.
It is difficult to achieve this result in adults otherwise, especially in terms of a single activity with low investment required in time, money, facilities, and commitment.
--------
It is likely that as we transitioned from a society where adult encounters with total strangers were rare (tribal/village) to common (urban) that alcohol played a pretty significant role in creating the social cohesion for it.
It is not at all clear that we have found some successful alternative to this, and we may well find that even with all the documented downsides of it, we're worse off as a society for moving away from it.
-----
Again, this is my recollection of a book I read a couple years back - don't take this word for word. I will also note that it's not all rosy and has some thoughts on the types of consumption we should probably discourage as well and the general risk/reward of alcohol in society.
Moreover, it seems likely to me that just like the "relaxing" effect of nicotine, this advantage is "stolen" from daily sober life. If we as a society agree to judge each other less harshly when we're drink, I think we will just naturally judge each other more harshly when we're sober.
However, unlike with nicotine, where the effect is physical and individual (you relax when you get nicotine because you get stressed by physical addiction when you don't), for alcohol it's social and collective. You suffer the negative effect (social pressure to basically be more uptight in everyday sober life) whether you participate or not.
Alcohol consumption follows a nasty curve. The average adult in the UK drinks about 11 liters of pure alcohol per year on average. Which is obviously a lot. But what's worse is, almost no one drinks 11 liters. The median is much lower, exactly how low is hard to find numbers on but as much as 1 in 5 Brits don't drink at all.
That means most of the alcohol is consumed by people who drink way too much by any sane definition.
If you own a pub, or an "off license", or arrange a music festival or pretty much any cultural venue, you know that in your bones. Staying afloat without selling alcohol, in particular without selling alcohol to people who drink far more than they should, is hopeless. You can't change things on your own. And even suggesting we should maybe work together to change will alienate your most profitable customers, who are understandably defensive about their drinking.
No, it's not a criminal enterprise, by definition. But you'll do better if you have a criminal's attitude - pick one: denial (consuming a lot yourself may help), rationalization ("if I didn't do it someone else would") or callousness. That's one reason pub chains do better.
However, I am, as I said, an American, but also a Millennial. For many Millennials, drinking isn't a social activity, it is a form of quiet shame. We saw our parents and aunts and uncles and grandparents destroy their lives because of alcoholism, we lost friends and family because of being victims of drunk drivers, we saw people die of complications of a lifetime of drinking.
A lot of us simply chose not to repeat those mistakes as those mistakes effect the people around us in grave ways.
If anything, drinking is an anti-social activity, even if you do it entirely socially.
I just don't see the point in keeping it around.
So 'you do you' and continue not drinking, no need to preach your life choices. I'm also 'millenial' , I enjoy many alcoholic drinks both socially and because they go with my meal or simply are something not hot/dairy/sweet and other than water.
> [Millennials] saw our parents and aunts and uncles and grandparents destroy their lives because of alcoholism, we lost friends and family because of being victims of drunk drivers, we saw people die of complications of a lifetime of drinking.
Why do you think alcoholism - which is certain distinct from drinking - was new with the generation above 'millenials'?
Whilst this is definitely not what's it's like, this quaint video is all about the lineage of the pub in the UK, and explains the third-spaceness of them, which I'd argue still exists[1].
Pubs are so important for our communities in the UK, whether that's watching the game, seeing a friend's band, celebrating a birthday or just catching up after work.
Many of the parts of my life have been lived in a pub. If it's criminal, I'd happily be locked up. Or maybe lock me in, a sadly rarer occurrence these days.
If someone opened a social space with maybe a kitchen that let you pay by the hour to hang out, credit for kitchen orders. All the other bar/pub accoutrements gaming (darts, pool, shuffleboard, pinball, whatnot), sports on the tv, whatever .. I still don't think people will go for it.
I think the only non-boozy option that comes to mind is the small town diner but those are thin on the ground.
how so? I go to a climbing gym and it is a pretty social (and, of course, healthy) activity... crossfit is not my thing but apparently it is similar for more traditional workouts. to the extent you can consider a cycling or running club a "space" those are similar. dog parks for dog owners, playgrounds for parents, etc...
The social point of a pub is that you can just decide to go in on a whim. Pubs are increasingly not about alcohol either. I’ve had a few instances in the last couple of years where I couldn’t drink alcohol for extended periods (various reasons, mostly medication related). Hasn’t stopped me going to the pub.
Years ago you would get an odd look if a group walked into a pub and all ordered soft drinks but not so much now (well, you still will get that in some pubs).
Obviously I’m not out looking for another place to buy a lime and soda after midnight but I can quite happily have an evening out without having to drink alcohol whilst others do or don’t around me.
Unfortunately I haven't found any place that cracks that problem in america, especially into the later hours. There isn't really a place for people to hang out and socialize without it being a boozy bar. As someone who doesn't really enjoy drinking I don't even really want to go to boardgame/chess/trivia nights at bars because I feel like I'm freeloading. ( I imagine any given bar patron is having 1-3 drinks per hour and potentially ordering some food if that is an option. I might order some food and have a soda...)
I assume part of the problem being that alcohol has the helpful side effect of greasing the wheels socially. Coffee houses that are open late are generally library like affairs, a lot of people sitting around on laptops or with books, any attempt to start a more social night is, in my experience, refused because of this.
You thus aren’t “half Irish or “half German”. Stop with your cultural appropriation.
Pubs won't question you if you ask for a lime and soda and they may even stop serving you if they think you've drunk enough.
When ordered by RV£ there are 43703 entries with data. Most negative RV£ change is -£137,500 for 33 Main Road
When ordered by RV% there are 43303 entries with data. Most negative RV% change is -87.0% for PAVILLION HOTEL
For anyone not in the know, UK postcodes are made up of two parts: a general area (the outward code) and then a more specific one (the inward code.) Generally speaking a postcode + house number will be good enough to get a letter delivered to the right place, though the sorting office might not be too happy with you...
The format [0] is roughly: AB12 3CD, though the number of letters/numbers on the left side can vary a bit. As far as I know the second set of numbers is always 1 digit though, so that's how you can easily split the two sides of it to format it nicely. There's a couple of special ones that break the rules though.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcodes_in_the_United_Kingdo...
I’ve lived somewhere in SW18/SW15/SW19 for the last 30 years. Having not grown up in London I can’t imagine living anywhere else. Apparently many other bits of London (North, East, central, etc) are good too but I’m not ready for change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SW_postcode_area
SW2 to SW9 are in alphabetical order: Brixton, Chelsea, Clapham, Earls Court, Fulham, South Ken, South Lambeth, Stockwell.
But then it starts again and you have to squint a bit for SW10-SW20: Brompton, Battersea, Balham, Barnes, Mortlake, Putney, Streatham, Tooting, Wandsworth, Wimbledon, West Wimbledon.
Looking at a few others (SE, etc) I see that the first chunk of them are in alphabetical order, but then they've added some extra ones later that break the ordering (e.g. SE19 onwards) but they have tried to add the extra ones in mostly alphabetical order too.
Most people assume it's relative to how far out the area is from the centre
A full postcode is often much less than a single street.
Picking something at random stick “SW15 6DZ” into Google maps and you’ll see it only covers 6 buildings (most are individual houses but some are split into flats). According to the Royal Mail address finder site there are only 12 unique delivery addresses that share that postcode. The Western half of that road has 12 or so full postcodes for only 100 houses.
A full postcode and one other bit of information can often be enough to uniquely identify someone.
If a US 5 digit zipcode is roughly equivalent to the “general area” part of a UK postcode (94107 <=> SW15) then the full UK postcode is like the 9 digit US Zip+4 format where the extra 4 digits narrow location down to a block, part of a block or even a specific building.
My business has its own unique postcode and so does next door! Between us we cover roughly three acres. Our place is one building with parking and a fair bit of greenery.
To be fair it's a 6-bedroom wing, but still a fun fact.
Details: election time. He went to the election folks and asked for his election papers. They said "sure, where do you live?" he said "the Bender, Eastville Park, Bristol", they said "that's not a valid address", he said "that's where I live, so that's where I'd like my registration to be, please". There was some back and forth. They caved, and duly entered his address on the electoral roll as such. Then he went to the Post Office and said "this is my address, as entered on the electoral roll, can I have my postcode please?". The Post Office kinda had no option, since this was now his official address. So they gave him a postcode and the postie had to walk through the park to drop off his mail.
There is guy living off grid in I believe Dorset on YouTube called "Maximus Ironthumper". The post office told him to try sending himself letters, eventually they started turning up. Then that became the address.
He has a whole series of videos about how he kinda managed to setup his off grid living situation, there is everything from how to avoid planning permission, to how he setup his solar power.
I still find it fascinating that we developed this human system, with expectations that are still in play, even if some aspects become less and less relevant, it's still an important tool beyond being dependent on technology. Same with lending libraries. A few things we should cherish that have real ethics in this lets-monetize-everything world.
Presumably it helps a lot with validating the address is correct, kinda like a checksum, and also probably helps with how deliveries are organised by the local office before the postie is sent out with them all.
A US Zip+4 usually identifies a specific delivery point. In some places this can mean it can even identify specific units within a building.
Throughout the year a friend of mine would collect any junk mail, but mostly many copies of the free daily newspapers (Metro, Evening Standard, etc) that litter the trains/underground in the evenings, soak them with water than use a briquette maker to press the paper into blocks. Once dried they provide an ample supply of fuel to heat his home for the 6-10 months of the year (depending on how poorly your home is insulated) that heating is required in the UK.
He definitely didn't have a "No junk mail" sticker on his letterbox.
Each postcode would then have an optimum delivery route often devised by the postie's themselves.
Often a single block of flats. Rurally perhaps even just a single residence?
Now asking An Post to overhaul their system to work on postcodes only is a bit like asking a postal service which requires postcodes to make them optional. It's technically possible, sure, but they're not going to want to spend the money.
_That said_, An Post's last resort routing department is pretty famous for getting the right address from pretty fragmentary information like "Mary down by the church, formerly of Kilnowhere", so I'm sure if a letter with just a eircode arrived there they'd sort it, but I imagine that An Post don't want to encourage people doing things that increases load on the labour intensive sorting.
<Moist ran downstairs and Lord Vetinari was indeed sitting in the Blind Letter Office with his boots on a desk, a sheaf of letters in his hand and a smile on his face.
'Ah, Lipwig,' he said, waving the grubby envelopes. 'Wonderful stuff! Better than the crossword! I like this one: "Duzbuns Hopsit pfarmerrsc". I've put the correct address underneath.' He passed the letter over to Moist.
He had written: K. Whistler, Baker, 3 Pigsty Hill.
'There are three bakeries in the city that could be said to be opposite a pharmacy,' said Vetinari, 'but Whistler does those rather good curly buns that regrettably look as though a dog has just done his business on your plate and somehow managed to add a blob of icing.'>
Sooooo yes happy with pubs closures.
Pubs are often the centre of a community, especially small ones. Not even small towns. Traditionally they have been centered around drinking, but this is changing. Much like libraries had to adapt to falling reading rates, pubs have had to adapt to falling alcohol consumption.
The hard part of this is that food and wage costs are often covered by alcohol costs, though where I'm from the government has exercised vice taxes to make this less tenable. More customers doesn't necessarily mean that much more profit, for a host of reasons.
I hope pubs find a way forward.
Source for my rambling: worked in and managed pubs for a decade. They're not just for heavy drinkers.
Pubs as social gathering places are critical to exist and keep alive.
Drinking neurotoxins that have a lot of destruction and damage, maybe not so much.
In the UK pubs are extremely different as well than the US. This site is for the UK, since it's asking for a postal code, among other signs. The UK also I believe has last call at 11 PM, which helps fuel the binge drinking before 11 PM and the wild public afterwards. In North America, last call for alcohol can be 1-3 AM, and people generally aren't in a rush to fuel up to blast off.
Hopefully they were able to see the negative effect, realise the mistake and reverse the decision.
It’s already a reality in many places.
Last call at 2, people filter out by 3, instead of being pushed outside instantly.
Some sporting events don’t sell alcohol the last quarter, period, etc.
Most pubs now have much longer hours (some even 24/7) although they choose their opening hours based on how busy they are or think they will be. The local councils will take into account local considerations and limit individual pubs as they see fit.
Decades of hooliganism (mostly a thing of the past thankfully) has meant that you can't be in possession of alcohol within view of the pitch in the top 5 tiers in the UK. (And by the 5th tier you're looking at matches that have attendances anywhere down to 400 or so, although some clubs in the 5th tier still manage to attract 10000 fans to home games).
This spills out into the local community around stadiums too. Many pubs really close to the ground will have extra restrictions on matchdays, that's probably what you've experienced. But that's not just the UK, I remember going to a River Plate game in Buenos Aires 20 years ago and being amazed that on match days there was no alcohol served within a mile of the stadium or some such rule.
I've been to Champions League games in the UK sponsored by a variety of alcoholic drink companies and they weren't serving alcohol anywhere in the stadium (well, I guess they still do in the hospitality sections).
Even when the stadiums do serve alcohol they do strange things like stopping serving as the second half kicks off. As someone who wants to watch all of the football I've paid to go see it's a very odd thing getting a pint at half time and drinking it in under 10 minutes in order to be back to the stands in time for the second half to kick off. Us Brits just accept it and deal with it.
Compare that to watching rugby or cricket in the UK where you have no fan segregation and alcohol allowed at the seats.
It's also much more relaxed at the lower tiers of UK football. I've watched a few Dulwich Hamlet games with a friend and they allow to bring your own beers in (may have changed, haven't been for a few years), and sometimes have a "pay what you want" admission price.
Wherever I go in the UK I try and keep a look out for a local game, even if the football is terrible the people watching is often amazing and worth the admission price alone.
It’s one way to say hooliganism in the past I guess.
That level of hooliganism at games and around the stadiums is a mostly a thing of the past.
The days of open brawls in the stands that you saw in the 80s/90s are gone, you just get the occasional bit of jostling nowadays if that. (I used to do stewarding back in the late 90s and saw a lot of the bad side of things.)
The various "firms" that would meet up for their arranged pre-match fight have dwindled to almost nothing and now there is little fear for away fans walking to/from games. It used to be quite a scary prospect depending on the ground visited.
However, successive UK Governments have repeatedly kicked the can down the road when considering reversing the 1985 ban that stopped people having a drink in view of the pitch.
More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_in_association_footbal...
I don't think any UK political party has the bottle (pun intended) to reintroduce it, it would be a pretty divisive proposal and most political parties try to steer well clear of such things in today's politics.
Things are starting to change though. At some grounds you do have home and away fans mixing in the concourses (the Putney End of Fulham's ground for example) but most grounds in the top tiers are designed to keep home and away fans apart as much as possible.
The business is no longer viable, planning constraints (and often listed building constraints, which is protection for historical buildings, many pubs are very old) won't let them do anything else with the building so they sit empty until they spontaneously combust. Soon after they get demolished and regrow as a supermarket or apartments.
More profitable to convert the pub into a house and sell it that to actually run a pub.
_Not_ doing repairs and upkeep is free.
Arson is very difficult to prove.
So the listing process preserves a building exactly as it is, sometimes for decades past its usefulness, until it collapses or burns down.
The third is listed under an old name, it changed hands and changed names years ago.
it is rated: "The (FPI) score of 22 means this pub is classified as “Feeling It”"
I guess prepare for an acceleration of the same.
But it's always busy even out of season, and absolutely heaving on match days. I'd be surprised if a single match day's profits weren't sufficient to cover the additional tax for the year.
Personally, I'll continue to offer my enthusiastic support to my much smaller, friendlier local even though it's facing only a tiny tax increase by comparison.
fourside•3w ago
imzadi•3w ago
Tom1380•3w ago
RIMR•3w ago
shermantanktop•3w ago
Don’t get me started on east coast dumdums pronouncing Oregon as “Orry-gone.”
lazyasciiart•3w ago
GJim•3w ago
Western Australia?
lazyasciiart•3w ago
deelayman•3w ago
*Editting with a point: Perhaps everyone assumes a local audience.
pierrec•3w ago
shermantanktop•3w ago
gnabgib•3w ago
notatoad•3w ago
MisterTea•3w ago
badc0ffee•3w ago
If they had made this a .co.uk rather than a .com, there would be no confusion.
SoftTalker•3w ago
Thews•3w ago
selectodude•3w ago
toasterlovin•3w ago
tshaddox•3w ago
tracker1•3w ago
wat10000•3w ago
tracker1•3w ago
badc0ffee•3w ago
dustincoates•3w ago
prmoustache•3w ago
That way it can be considered that the food is part of the price of the drink.
wat10000•3w ago
dylan604•3w ago
9rx•3w ago
thebruce87m•3w ago
9rx•3w ago
thebruce87m•3w ago
9rx•3w ago
jhbadger•3w ago
9rx•3w ago
98% of the UK population can speak English, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. Clearly every part (maybe some small, uncelebrated village breaks the rule) of the UK has a language spoken by virtually the entire population of that region.
> (unlike NI or Scotland where a tiny percentage can speak their Celtic tongue)
If you are struggling to say that England is the only country in the UK that sees most of its population still speak the language of its ancestral roots, then I suppose that's true, but when English is the most commonly used natural language across the entire world I'm not sure that is much of a feat.
What does any of this have to do with the discussion at hand?
OJFord•3w ago
9rx•3w ago
lazyasciiart•3w ago
9rx•3w ago
Much the same thing has happened here too (the local watering holes struggling and failing, that is), but that isn't even considered newsworthy at the local level, let alone a message that has spread far and wide. English pubs, for whatever reason, are the only ones that have consistently caught grander attention.
But there will always be someone living under a rock, as they say.
fourside•3w ago
jtbaker•3w ago
xrownow•3w ago
amouat•3w ago
eterm•3w ago
iso1631•3w ago
rcbdev•3w ago
jaffa2•3w ago